Entries for December 2005

My frequent e-mail correspondent Ironman picks up on my latest U.S. News column on lessons of the past 25 years in which I wrote that "in December 1980, Jimmy Carter was serving his last full month in office and Ronald Reagan was president-elect ... Experts preached that America's best days were behind it"—and expands on it. I'm not sure I agree, but I pass it along as interesting:

"It is a truism of American politics that a generation's political attitudes are shaped by the events they experienced in adolescence and young adulthood. The Jimmy Carter post-Vietnam malaise was the informing experience of "Generation W"... those voters born from 1955 to 1966 or so who were too young for the Vietnam draft and had matured before the end of the Cold War.

Rick Hasen, a law professor who runs the thoughtful and informative electionlawblog.org and who seems to be a Democrat, has an interesting post on Slate as to why Democrats should not wish the Supreme Court to overturn the Texas redistricting.

It's a good, solid contribution. Also, it's not clear that the substitution of the Texas districting proposal ordered by the three-judge federal court in 2001 for the DeLay plan passed by the legislature in 2003 would result in Democrats gaining more than a seat or two. The court plan did follow the contours of the 1991 partisan Democratic design (except for awarding Republicans the two new seats Texas gained in the reapportionment following the 2000 census). Even so, several Democrats held on in 2002 and earlier elections largely because they enjoyed the advantages of incumbency. But they were beaten or chose to retire in 2004. And even in the old districts, the new Republican incumbents would probably hold an advantage. Exception to the rule: Martin Frost, the 26-year incumbent and Democratic leader who lost in 2004 in the 32nd District, which was very different from the 24th District in which he won in 2002.

In an article in the December 20 Washington Post, reporter Shailagh Murray writes, "[M]any Alaskans take a practical view of [Sen. Ted] Stevens. 'I would not say he's the most popular person in Alaska,' said Gerald McBeath, a professor of political science at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. 'But people are aware of the seniority system and its benefits. It's a very healthy contribution that we receive from the federal government.'"

Reporters are not supposed to put their own personal estimates of a politician's popularity into their articles. So they often quote supposed experts, like this in-state political scientist. But anyone with an acquaintance of political scientists knows that most of them are not particularly expert on local politics. Few politicians would pay them as political consultants. McBeath does appear to have written on Alaska state politics, and so he is probably a better choice as a commentator here than many political scientists would be. Still, his estimate seems faulty to me.

Scott Rasmussen's automated poll has George W. Bush's job rating up sharply, from 44 percent on December 19—about where it's been lingering for months—to 50 percent on December 23. By itself this just might be taken for an outlier, but other polls have also showed a significant uptick in Bush's job rating. Mystery Pollster, inclined to regard the first of these upticks as an outlier, has now taken the view that Bush's numbers are up; compare his initial post and his updates. Both are models of intelligent and thoughtful poll interpretation, reading the numbers carefully as they come in.

Few if any polls are going to be taken over the Christmas week, so it looks like Bush will end the year with an uptick. But it's still far from clear that he can make some policy headway off it in 2006.

This is the time of year when many of us sit down and write out checks for charities. One of the most worthy, in my view, is the Salvation Army, as I have written before in baroneblog. Here are two interesting and moving articles by Roy Hattersley, former deputy leader of the Labor Party, about the Salvation Army. Let me quote the concluding lines of Hattersley's Times piece: "I list the volunteers who work the streets at night among the best people I have ever met. I wish that I had the courage and grace regularly to join them. In my inadequacy, I do no more than assert that they are worthy of your support."

Here is a link to the Pajamas Media blog coverage of the election in Iraq, where polls are closing as I write.

For a look at how the voting went in Mosul, my U.S. News colleague Julian E. Barnes has an on-the-ground report.

Here's some more coverage from the Washington Post and the Daily Telegraph. It appears that turnout was high—higher than in the January 30 and October 15 elections—and violence low—lower than in January and October.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean may think that victory in Iraq is impossible, but the people of Iraq seem to take a different view. I continue to find it fascinating that so many on the American left are rooting for the failure of democracy and freedom in Iraq. And that many on the left here and abroad agree with Michael Moore that the terrorists are the Minutemen and that they will win. People on the left like to believe that they are the vanguard of history and that they stand for freedom and democracy. On Iraq, because of their hatred of George W. Bush and their disdain for the assertion of American power, they seem to stand on the other side.

Two more excellent speeches this week by George W. Bush. Once again, Bush admits that mistakes were made and tells how tactics were changed in response. Once again, he argues that he has followed a consistent strategy throughout.

The four speeches he has made on this subject over the past two weeks have clearly moved American public opinion his way. Bush's job approval is up to 42 percent in the www.realclearpolitics.com average, up from 36 percent a few weeks ago.